The Times, which on Dec. 5 ran a front-page editorial (the first since 1920 when it took Republicans to task for nominating Warren G. Harding for president) against guns, was citing a study by Daniel Webster, the director of the Johns Hopkins Center for Gun Policy and Research. But as gun scholar John Lott Jr., president of the Crime Prevention Research Center, pointed out for me last week, “cherry picking” results tend to give you the results you're predisposed to seek.

As Mr. Lott found, in an exhaustive 2014 review of Mr. Webster's research, the results are more complicated than simply looking at what the average murder rates were before and after rescinding the Missouri law.

“While it is true that the murder rate in Missouri rose (about) 17 percent relative to the rest of the United States after the law was changed, it had actually increased by 32 percent during the five years prior to the change,” Lott then wrote.

Thus, the real question for researchers to consider, according to Lott, is why “the Missouri murder rate was increasing relative to the rest of the U.S. at a slower rate after the change in the law” — after the comprehensive background checks were scotched — “than it did prior to it.”

But the bottom line remains this: “Imposing the law raised murder and robbery rates,” Lott told me. “Removing the law lowered them.” . . .

The issue of cherry-picking is much broader than this. The question is if you have 20 states that have had these expanded background checks, why pick only one state to look at? If Missouri enacts this law in 1981 and rescinds it in 2007, why only look at when it is rescinded? The proper way to examine this question is to look at it the way Lott did in the third edition of More Guns, Less Crime as it examined all the states that have adopted or rescinded these types of laws between 1977 and 2005. Those estimate showed no benefit in expanded background checks reducing violent crime.

12/31/2015

What is ahead for Russia

As you read this, please keep in mind that the price of oil from the Urals was down to $34.58 at the end of 2015. With price of oil down from the $50 per barrel that the Russia government was predicting when they drew up spending for 2016, the deficit will have grown from 3% to 4% of GDP, but that assumes a constant GDP. Assuming that GDP falls by 10 percent (given that the current oil price is the best predictor of what it will be and the numbers given below), that implies that the deficit will rise to 4.4% of GDP. A 10% further drop in GDP as well as the costs of the war in Syria and the large military expenditures by Russia, could greatly reduce per capita real income. Interestingly, unlike US policies, the Russian government has dramatically cut back on government spending. Otherwise, they would be even much worse shape. Note this recent drop is on top of the 50% drop that had occurred in 2014. From the WSJ:

Oil and gas exports make up about half of the Russian budget, and the rouble ratehas been strongly linked to the price of oil. . . .

The [Rubble] regained some of its value by spring, but falling oil prices in autumn have caused it to fall back to lows similar to those it experienced in late 2014. . . .

Last October, Putin said that if the price of oil fell below $80 a barrel, the world economy would crash. A range of other top Russian officials made similar statements, in effect ruling out the possibility that oil could fall below $70.

Some analysts say the rouble is still overvalued, and the current oil price should theoretically push the rouble down further. This is necessary to balance the budget: the fewer dollars Russia receives for the oil it sells, the higher the exchange rate needs to be for the budget to receive the requisite amount of roubles. For the budget to balance at 65 roubles, not far off the current rate, the price of oil should be $70, a recent Bank of America Merrill Lynch report found.

For ordinary Russians, it could be a tough year ahead. Those who were used to travelling abroad have already had to scale back as the rouble made the cost of visiting foreign cities prohibitive; and rising food prices have made it harder to balance the books for many families.

The 2016 budget, fixed in October, requires oil to be at $50 in order to run a 3% deficit within “acceptable” rouble rate limits, meaning if the price does not rise soon, cuts will need to be made or reserves spent. The war in Syria is an extra cost, and the announced increases in military spending are not likely to be reversed. . . .

12/30/2015

My continued debate with Gary Kleck over his attacks on "More Guns, Less Crime"

In mid-November I got into an exchange with Gary Kleck about "More Guns, Less Crime." This took place after other Kleck statements to the media about me.

In the new discussion, Gary continues to go out of his way to engage in personal attacks on me: "he instead invents a distorted straw man," "presents a fantasy version," "Lott’s version of economic theory is one that has been dead for decades," "One of Lott’s many errors is to blindly assume," "In his efforts to distort my positions . . . blatant falsehood," "This is pure invention," "Lott’s error was in simplistically assuming," "Lott tells another especially bizarre whopper," and "The rest of Lott’s comments are filled with misinformation that betrays an extraordinary ignorance of the research literature."

Lott: Take this quote from Gary’s initial interview with Ari: “across areas, there is no effect of gun ownership rates on crime rates, including homicide rates.” And in his last posting he makes the claim: “national gun ownership rates have no net effect on national homicide rates (the position I [Kleck] endorse).” But Gary has been making this claim even more broadly for some time.

Similarly, this past summer, Gary told Mother Jones magazine: “Do I know of anybody who specifically believe with more guns there are less crimes and they’re a credible criminologist? No.” Gary is saying clearly the debate isn’t just about whether guns are increasing. He is claiming that even if gun ownership is increasing, there won’t be reduced crime.

Everyone knows of Gary’s work on guns being used defensively, but there is a contradiction here. While Gary points to guns being used defensively and those defensive uses exceed the number of times guns are used in the commission of crime, he repeatedly says that increased gun ownership doesn’t reduce crime.
I don’t understand why Gary claims that more gun ownership doesn’t mean less crime, and I have asked him about this in multiple conversations, but whenever I have asked him to explain how these different claims could be reconciled he has declined to do so.

UPDATE: There are two primary parts of my debate with Kleck: whether the number of concealed handguns being carried has increased and whether that increase has reduced violent crime. Kleck claims that there has been no increase in concealed handguns (that the increase in legally carried guns has just offset the drop in the number being carried illegally) and that even if there was an increase it wouldn't effect the crime rate. On the first point, I noted how more concealed handguns accidentally being checked in with baggage at the airport is closely correlated with more concealed handgun permits being issued. Robert VerBruggen at Real Clear Policy looks at the issue more carefully and reports:

The places with strict laws are home to more than one-quarter of the U.S. population, but they accounted for just 8 percent of the guns TSA found, mostly in massive California. Of course, this isn't just carry laws at work — these states also have lower gun ownership and harsher penalties for people who run afoul of gun laws, even accidentally. (See New Jersey, especially, on that latter point.)

The trends are much more convincing. The stricter states accounted for 157 guns in 2012, 141 in 2013, and 165 in 2014 — a pattern consistent with randomness, with a decrease between the first two years. The states that grant permits liberally, by contrast, saw their gun count climb steadily and dramatically, from 1,334 to 1,652 to 1,945. Many of these states saw substantial increases individually as well. Texas's number rose from 292 to 417. . . .